The traditional critique of marginalist economics is that it is "autistic" (although I find this language somewhat unfortunate) in the sense that its minimal empiricism can only discover how a constants in a set of mathematical data relate to each other. Within the discipline of economics, it is considered "good" and approaching a science when it discovers things like the correlation between inflation and unemployment. In other words, it aspires to be a science by situating itself as a anti-humanism that discovers "objective" laws. Of course, as we know, its origin in classical political economy was highly ethically concerned (Malthus was a cleric, Bentham was a jurist, Smith was somewhat utopian). The only economic discourses that are ethically concerned are marginalized if not ridiculed in mainstream economics: Marxist economics, social justice oriented economics (i.e., feminist, activist, civil libertarian, etc.) and so forth. Its a sociological problem (a sociology of economics would be a very valuable program of research): economics can be used to theorize about violence in terms of economic causes and effects but the marginalists are not fond of thinking about it; for them, the tendency is to either believe that violence can only be done to markets or "the economy" through policy (the markets must be kept efficient and stable, the ethical concerns of humans are not their priority) or remain silent on ethical concerns because of a lack of authorization (it is beyond their purview) or lack of qualification to speak on the matter (they are not philosophically trained enough to infer the ethical consequences of economic facts beyond simple assumptions). However, moralizing claims seem to consistently come from economists of all stripes so it is clear that economists do not see themselves as strictly prohibited from talking about ethics or violence (consider Paul Krugman or the Tea Party discourse of "moral markets."). I suppose the tendency in the discipline itself is to leave questions of violence to sociologists and political scientists. But the segregation of the human sciences, I believe, is highly arbitrary and this division of labor is detrimental to their progress.